- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:59:26 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>, Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
On 23/03/12 14:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
>
>> I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
>> I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also pointed it out),
>> that, as shown by the Flickr and Jamendo examples, the real issue is
>> not an IR/NIR type distinction, but rather a distinction in the
>> *manner* in which a URI gets its meaning, via instantiation (of some
>> generic IR) on the one hand, vs. description (of *any* resource,
>> perhaps even an IR) on the other. The whole
>> information-resource-as-type issue is a total red herring, perhaps the
>> most destructive mistake made by the httpRange-14 resolution.
>
> +1000. There is no need for anyone to even talk about "information resources". The important point about http-range-14, which unfortunately it itself does not make clear, is that the 200-level code is a signal that the URI *denotes* whatever it *accesses* via the HTTP internet architecture.
Quite, and this signal is what the change proposal rejects.
The proposal is that URI X denotes what the publisher of X says it
denotes, whether it returns 200 or not.
In those cases where you want a separate URI Xrdf to denote "the
document containing the steaming pile of RDF triples describing X" then
(in addition to use of 303s) you have the option to include
X wdr:describedby Xrdf .
Thus if X denotes a book then you can describe the license for the book
and the license for the description of the book separately.
Dave
Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 15:00:04 UTC